In 2013, The Innovation Act that passed so overwhelmingly in the House died that year on the Senate side. You will recall that it was designed to protect big tech’s efficient infringement business model further. It reappeared in 2014, passed Judiciary Committees in both bodies but died without a floor vote when the session ended. Recent developments suggest that it may rear its ugly head again. Congress is woefully undereducated on the workings of our innovation ecosystem. As demonstrated by the Senate Armed Services Committee’s unanimous support for Senator Angus King’s price-based Bayh-Dole march-in proposal, folks the Hill do not understand why adding politically-driven compulsory licensing based on an abstract and unpredictable price calculation formula will deter commercialization in of life science research grants. Would pre-investment due diligence preceding investment in an Alzheimer’s defeating therapy include an estimate of how long it would be before its successful development triggered price-based march-in? You bet it would.
By way of follow-up to yesterday’s report on Rep. Goodlatte’s 115th Congress agenda, below are Gene Quinn’s patent litigation reform observations regarding his Wednesday announcement. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/01/goodlatte-patent-litigation-reform-copyright-reform/id=77879/
We note that IP Sub-Committee Chair Issa and full Committee Chair Goodlatte have historically and unabashedly carried big IT’s water in the House for years. But because of an apparent diminution of big tech’s White House enthrallment, Reps. Goodlatte and Issa may need to protect other big tech priorities than efficient infringement. Be assured however, that Judiciary Committee leadership will seize every opportunity available during the 115th Congress to insert HR 9 type litigation “reform” into any measure open to such shenanigans. Continue reading Representative Goodlatte’s Patent Reform Planning
Every day, Hill Members and staff are assailed by lobbyists they know and like whose interests and arguments are opposed. To get to the truth many use Hill heuristics or “rules of thumb” to help them decide which side’s argument to believe. For example, they prefer arguments based on actual narratives to manipulatable numbers. Constituent experiences with an issue in conflict are easy to understand and recall and of course are politically relevant. Recent Hill appearances by inventors already harmed by AIA also have been persuasive. Sometimes it helps to “follow the money”. Which side has the most to gain or lose can provide independent understanding regarding what is really going on. Mr. Issa’s public characterization of university opposition to HR 9 (see earlier post) not only confirms the persuasive power of past direct constituent congressional contact, it can provide valuable insight into the true motivation driving his attachment to the issue. Continue reading Capitol Hill Heuristics
Below are two posts of consequence as we move into the early days of the 115th Congress. The first is by IPW’s Steve Brachman. It provides reliable solid background information on patent policy activity as we move into 2017. It is up to Steve’s usual concise excellence.
The Four Consequential Patent Trends of 2016 By Steve Brachmann on Dec 30, 2016 09:15 am Continue reading Commercialization’s Status as Congress Opens
At every year’s end IP Watchdog’s Gene Quinn asks “IP Insiders” to comment on important patent developments during the prior 12 months. This year’s patent section is linked below. Its collective commentaries summarize important 2016 developments affecting the future viability of research university commercialization. Significantly, every setback to the protracted sequence of commercialization is felt most acutely at its earliest stage of TT where uncertainty, financial risk and market unknowns are greatest. Our response to Gene’s invitation is attached below. Continue reading End of Year IPWatchdog Commentary